Partnerships and Collaborations

Through the course of an exploration of the question “Who can support Rec2Tech in cities?”, participants discussed a wide range of issues and ideas that were ultimately synthesized into three key topics: Establishing Models for Rec2Tech Partnership, Developing Effective Collaborative Partnerships, and Categories of Potential Partners.

Establishing Models of Rec2Tech Partnership

Independently, many participants described a model for Rec2Tech Partnership that included three distinct roles:

• A space partner that provides and/or maintains the location where the Rec2Tech project occurs. This could include a public housing site, a municipal recreation center, a public library, or other shared space easily accessible to the community.
• A programming partner that provides educational activities in the space. In addition to developing and delivering youth programming, this partner is also likely responsible for recruiting, training, and managing instructional staff, as well as procuring and maintaining equipment and materials.
• A public partner representing municipal leadership and responsible for establishing and maintaining public support for the Rec2Tech project.

Beyond this triangle of partners necessary for operating a Rec2Tech project, other categories of partners were described as “plugging into the space.” For example, higher education partners provide additional programming or build bridges to college, workforce partners offer internship or apprenticeship opportunities, funding partners (corporate or philanthropic) support programs and contribute to financial sustainability.

Developing Effective Collaborative Partnerships

Participants were generally supportive of partnership as a necessary mode of operation, but agreed that partnerships could be more beneficial for all involved by establishing a framework for developing effective collaborative partnerships. Such a framework would include:

• Methods for finding and evaluating potential partners: The project leader would conduct a survey of community assets and a comparison of those assets with Rec2Tech project needs. The result would be a mutual understanding of what value each partner contributes to the success of the project.
• Process for establishing a shared vision: This process would begin with gathering input from a broad set of participants, not just partners but also other key constituents and the target service population. Core partners would use the input garnered through this process to inform a set of shared principles, expectations, and goals that would guide the project.
• Guidance on managing collaborative relationships: The long-term success of the project depends on partners having a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. This insight gave further support to the need for a project leader to establish and maintain these roles and responsibilities.

Categories of Potential Partners

Participants identified several examples of organizations that may have a likely role in a Rec2Tech project. With each category, participants noted the assets, resources, goals, and challenges specific to that category:

• K-12 education system: Public schools, as the locus of learning for the overwhelming majority of youth, are essential stakeholders. Engaging with schools can lead to credit-bearing learning opportunities in Rec2Tech spaces. Many K-12 districts and/or state education systems include Career & Technical Education programs that share similar interests and approaches to maker-oriented learning as Rec2Tech Sites. Challenges inherent in partnerships with K-12 education included state education standards and navigating local leadership bureaucracy.
• Community Assets: Participants identified an expansive list of community-based organizations and youth-serving agencies that can be Rec2Tech Partners. Among the strongest partners include public libraries, parks and recreation centers, and existing afterschool/out-of-school learning programs. Challenges associated with partnering with non-school education partners included varying levels of program quality and organizational capacity, as well as the lack of external validation of the learning that occurs in out-of-school spaces.
• Business Community: Both small-businesses and major corporations were identified as important contributors. Local business, either large or small, was seen as a source of potential funding support and workforce connections through internships and apprenticeships. Large corporations and industry sectors with national influence were seen as potential allies to advocate for the spread of Rec2Tech and maker learning opportunities.
• Higher Education: Colleges and universities, especially community colleges, were noted as a potential “bridge” between informal Rec2Tech maker programs and accredited learning experiences for older teens and young adults. Professors and instructors were seen as a source of guidance in developing curriculum that meets standards expected in higher education settings.
• Civic Leadership: Elected officials and other influential local leaders were seen as valuable partners in helping to raise awareness and generate interest and appreciation for Rec2Tech projects. Most participants agreed on the dual need for actual leadership to manage the complexity of a Rec2Tech project and symbolic leadership to champion its efforts in the local community.

See the rest of the Key Findings from the national Rec2Tech convening held on May 31, 2016.